alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                     LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                             FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30
                                                       ----------------------------------------------------
                                                         1997       1998       1999       2000       2001
                                                       --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                    <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Pre-tax earnings from continuing operations..........  $   593    $   847    $ 1,013    $ 1,617    $ 1,129

Add: Fixed charges (excluding
  capitalized interest)..............................   12,233     14,746     12,552     16,076     13,510
                                                       -------    -------    -------    -------    -------
Pre-tax earnings before fixed charges................   12,826     15,593     13,565     17,693     14,639
                                                       =======    =======    =======    =======    =======

Fixed charges:
  Interest...........................................   12,216     14,730     12,535     16,059     13,485
  Other(a)...........................................       19         20         17         17         25
                                                       -------    -------    -------    -------    -------
    Total fixed charges..............................  $12,235    $14,750    $12,552    $16,076    $13,510
                                                       =======    =======    =======    =======    =======

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES...................     1.05       1.06       1.08       1.10       1.08
</Table>

------------------------

(a) Other fixed charges consist of the interest factor in rentals and
    capitalized interest.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BOE Financial Services of Virginia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 15, 2007 (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of his knowledge:
(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of March 31, 2007, and for the periods then ended.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ George M. Longest, Jr.
|George M. Longest, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer   
|                          
|/s/ Bruce E. Thomas       
|Bruce E. Thomas           
|Chief Financial Officer   

May 15, 2007
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 14, 2016 520403 

________________________________

In the Matter of IYANNA KK. 

and Another, Alleged to be

Permanently Neglected

Children.

BROOME COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent;

EDWARD KK.,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 2, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ.

__________

John M. Scanlon, Binghamton, for appellant.

Kuredin V. Eytina, Broome County Department of Social

Services, Binghamton, for respondent.

Andrea Mooney, Ithaca, attorney for the children.

__________

Aarons, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County

(Connerton, J.), entered January 1, 2015, which granted

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social

Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate the subject children to be

permanently neglected, and terminated respondent's parental

rights.

Respondent is the father of the subject children (born in
-2- 520403 

2010), twins who, since shortly after their birth, have been

under the foster care of petitioner. In September 2011, the

children were adjudicated to be neglected and respondent was

ordered, among other things, to complete parenting, counseling

and support programs and maintain a safe and stable residence for

the children. In August 2013, petitioner commenced this

proceeding seeking the termination of respondent's parental

rights on the ground of permanent neglect. Following a factfinding hearing, Family Court found that respondent permanently

neglected the children. After a dispositional hearing, Family

Court, in January 2015, terminated respondent's parental rights.1

At oral argument, the attorney for the child advised this

Court that, during the pendency of the appeal, the subject

children were adopted. Initially, we do not condone the parties'

failure to notify this Court earlier of the adoption or to

mention it in any of the briefs, especially when it was finalized

months before the appeal was perfected. Notwithstanding this

failure, the adoption of the children has rendered respondent's

appeal from the dispositional order moot (see Matter of Alexis C.

[Jacqueline A.], 99 AD3d 542, 543 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 856

[2013]), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not

apply (see Matter of Karlee JJ. [Jessica JJ.], 105 AD3d 1304,

1305 [2013]). Although the adoption would not have rendered moot

a challenge to the finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of

Mahogany Z. [Wayne O.], 72 AD3d 1171, 1172 [2010], lv denied 14

NY3d 714 [2010]), respondent abandoned any such challenge by

failing to address that issue in his brief (see Matter of Izayah

J. [Jose I.], 104 AD3d 1107, 1108 n 2 [2013]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

1 The children's mother surrendered the children to

petitioner in October 2012, and her parental rights were

terminated in May 2013.
-3- 520403 

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Capital Gold Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gifford
A. Dieterle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

                                            /s/ Gifford A. Dieterle
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Gifford A. Dieterle
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            November 11, 2004


                                       1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

GLENFORD GEORGE CHAMBERS,

Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-257 December 27, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christine Ann Marlewski, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow , for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SILBERMAN, BLACK, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Exhibit 32.2

                                CERTIFICATION
                     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated this 3rd day of May, 2005.




                                       /s/ Albert R. Rietheimer
                                       -------------------------------
                                           Albert R. Rietheimer
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                                  and Treasurer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. and will be retained by Bancorp Rhode
Island, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 8223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02348]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation 
Cooperative Agreement (U01 Clinical Trial Required); Investigator 
Initiated Extended Clinical Trial (R01 Clinical Trial Required).
    Date: March 6, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Soheyla Saadi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC-9823, Rockville, MD 
20892, (240) 669-5178, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#36455757525f45595e76585f575f5218585f5e18515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f4879595909d879b9cb49a9d959d90da9a9d9cda939b82">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 1, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-02348 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### J. W. BARNETT, Appellant, v. CITY OF MINERAL WELLS et al., Appellees.

No. 3262.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Nov. 23, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1956.

*925V. K. Wedgworth, Mineral Wells, for appellant.

Bouldin & Bouldin, Mineral Wells, C. 0. McMillan, Stephenville, for appellees.

LONG, Justice.

This is a damage suit instituted by J. W. Barnett against the City of Mineral Wells and two City Commissioners, Gene Fowler and Homer Carriker, as such, and individually. The defendants filed numerous exceptions to plaintiff’s petition which were sustained by the court. The plaintiff refused to amend. A plea in abatement to plaintiff’s suit was sustained. The case was dismissed. Plaintiff has appealed.

Appellant relies upon the following point for a reversal of the judgment: “The trial court erred in sustaining appellees’ said plea in abatement and exceptions and in dismissing appellant’s suit.” Appellant alleged that for ten years he had been a garbage hauler for hire in the City of Mineral Wells; that the City of Mineral Wells had passed ordinances regulating the hauling of garbage and had declared certain types of trucks used in hauling garbage to be nuisances and subject to seizure under the police powers of the City of Mineral Wells. Appellant further alleged that he had an inherent right, regardless of the ordinances of the City of Mineral Wells regulating the hauling of garbage and the type of vehicle to be used for such purposes, to continue to haul garbage over the public streets of the City of Mineral Wells without a permit from said city and in violation of the ordinances of the city; that he had suffered damages by being deprived of earning a livelihood as a garbage hauler by reason of the passage and enforcement of said ordinance.

The appellees by numerous special exceptions pointed out that plaintiff’s petition on its face showed that appellant had no cause of action. We have carefully considered all of the exceptions and appellant’s petition and we believe the court properly sustained each special exception. Appellant having refused to amend, the trial court was required under the law to dismiss the suit. We find no error in the judgment of the trial court and it is in all things affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                   AGREEMENT
                                   ---------

     THIS AGREEMENT is entered into effective April 1, 1996 by and between
Network Six, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Rhode
Island  (the "Corporation"), and Robert E. Radican, residing in St. Thomas,
United States Virgin Islands ("Radican")

     WHEREAS, the Corporation and Radican entered into a Deferred Compensation
Agreement effective January 1, 1994, whereby certain sums were to be paid by the
Corporation into a so-called "Rabbi Trust" for the ultimate benefit of Radican.
At that time, Merrill Lynch Trust Companies became the trustee of the trust;

     WHEREAS, the first Deferred Compensation Agreement of January 1, 1994 was
replaced by a Deferred Compensation Agreement effective January 1, 1995; and

     WHEREAS, the Corporation and Radican now wish to terminate the Deferred
Compensation Agreement, but to provide for the same payments called for
thereunder to be paid directly to Radican rather than to the aforementioned
trust.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     1.   The Deferred Compensation Agreement dated effective January 1, 1995
between the Corporation and Radican is hereby terminated.

     2.   Commencing on the last day of April, 1996 and continuing on the last
day of each subsequent month until and including December 31, 2001, the
Corporation shall pay to Radican the sum of $5,000 per month in consideration of
the termination of the Deferred Compensation Agreement, his past service to the
Corporation and the non-competition covenant hereinafter set forth.

     3.   The Corporation and Radican shall notify Merrill Lynch Trust Companies
of the termination of the Deferred Compensation Agreement and Merrill Lynch
Trust Companies shall be directed to pay over and deliver to Radican the entire
current balance of Radican's "Deferred Compensation Account" in the trust to
Radican.

     4.   Radican agrees that for a period of four (4) years and six (6) months
from the date hereof he will not compete with the Corporation in the state
government human services systems integration business, so long as the
Corporation has made all payments to Radican required by the agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this agreement to be
executed by its duly authorized office and Radican has hereto set his hand as of
the date first above written.

                                                  NETWORK SIX, INC.


                                                  By:/s/ Kenneth C. Kirsch
                                                  ------------------------



                                                  /s/ R. E. Radican
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  Robert E. Radican
#### Margarito CALDERON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 38825.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1965.

Joseph L. Nanus, Edinburg (Court Appointed Attorney), for appellant.

R. L. Lattimore, Dist. Atty., Edinburg, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is statutory rape; the punishment, five years.

The prosecutrix testified that she became acquainted with appellant and his wife during the cotton picking season -in the summer of 1964, that thereafter she visited in their home, that in December of that year appellant had intercourse with her while his wife was out of the house, that upon her return, appellant’s wife washed and ironed her dress to remove the blood stains which resulted from her first act of intercourse, and that she had further acts with him until her pregnancy was discovered in the following April. She testified that she became 16 years of age one month before her first act of intercourse and that she had never had intercourse with another man.

Her father testified that he never allowed prosecutrix to go out at night except to visit appellant and his wife, who lived nearby and whom he considered safe.

It is unnecessary to recount appellant’s wife’s denial that any act of intercourse had taken place between appellant and prosecutrix in her house, because appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted that he had many acts of intercourse with prose-cutrix both in the cotton field and in the alley in back of his home at a time when undisputed evidence shows that she was 15 years old.

The court charged the jury on the defense of prior unchastity and no objections were leveled to such charge.

The jury chose to accept the testimony of the prosecutrix and reject that of appellant, and we overrule his contention that the State’s testimony does not comport with human experience.

Finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
#### BROWN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Roosevelt DUFF and the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 22, 1965.

Robert L. Milby, Hamm, Taylor & Milby, London, for appellant.

Tribell & Tribell, Middlesboro, for appel-lees.

*927WADDILL, Commissioner.

The appeal is from a judgment of the Bell Circuit Court dismissing an appeal from an opinion and order of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which overruled a motion by appellee Roosevelt Duff to reopen his claim for compensation benefits. We are affirming the judgment because appellant, Brown Equipment Company, merely seeks to have certain language deleted from the Board’s written opinion.

Duff received an injury on September 21, 1956, for which Brown Equipment Company paid him compensation under an agreement which was approved by the Board. After Duff returned to work March 25, 1957, a final settlement agreement was approved by the Board. In September, 1957 Duff filed an application seeking further compensation for his injury. Following a hearing in 1958 a referee found that Duff was not entitled to further compensation and recommended that his claim be dismissed.

No further effort was made by Duff to obtain compensation until June, 1964 when Duff moved to reopen pursuant to KRS 342.125. The Board found that this motion was filed too late.

Although Brown Equipment Company had defeated Duff’s attempt to reopen the case it appealed to the Bell Circuit Court urging it to strike from the Board’s written opinion a statement concerning what the referee recommended in 1958. There is no authority for appealing from a statement appearing in a written opinion of the Board, a fortiori, this is so where, as here, it is not even relevant to the disposition of the case. KRS 342.285. Moreover, there was no justiciable issue presented by the purported appeal. We conclude that Duff’s motion to dismiss the appeal was properly sustained by the circuit court.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly  report of Island Critical Care. on Form 10-QSB
for the period  ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
dates indicated below,  hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.     the information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operation of the
Company.


Dated:  August 10, 2004          /s/ Marc Juliar
                                     ----------------------
                                     Name: Marc Juliar
                                     Title: Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  August 10, 2004          /s/ Marc Juliar
                                     ----------------------
                                     Name: Marc Juliar
                                     Title: Chief Financial Officer
* The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United St ates Chief District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0138n.06 Filed: February 22, 2005 No. 04-5400 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DANA BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Before: RYAN and COOK, Circuit Judges; BELL, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM. Dana Brooks appeals the district court’s order affirm ing the ALJ’s denial of social security disability benefits. After hearing oral argument and reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court determ ines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion and affirms the district court’ s decision for the reasons well stated in Chief District Judge James Todd’s opinion.